IMO the analogy between digital photos and music encoding is resolution=sample rate and bit depth=er...bit depth!
I think the point is there is a certain photo resolution which is enough (think about scanning text) and a certain bit-depth that is enough (think about photo of a landscape where there are gradual colour transitions). But what is "enough" for viewing a photo might not be enough for *processing* that photo. Depending on which processing you wish to carry out on the picture maybe you would desire either extra resolution or extra bit-depth so the end result does not end up with visible artifacts from the processing. In the case of a volume control, for example, the photo analogy is "brightness" adjustment. For this, a good bit-depth is required. Same for EQ maybe. If you want to transform the image (analogy - adding reverb in a studio) then perhaps resolution is more important. After processing, the resolution and bit-depth can be returned to the "viewing" resolution and bit-depth without compromising quality (compared to an unprocessed version of the image at the same data size). So when studies show that red book can't be distinguished from hi-rez formats (which I can believe) it doesn't mean that higher rez formats aren't needed for studio work. (Of course, I would prefer it if studios did as little as possible to the signal, but we must live in the real world :^) ) Darren PS: I believe the SB3/Transporter 24 bit volume control is what makes 24/48 a good candidate. -- darrenyeats SB3 / Inguz -> Sony DAS-703ES DAC -> Krell KAV-300i -> PMC AB-1 Dell laptop -> JVC UX-C30 mini system ------------------------------------------------------------------------ darrenyeats's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10799 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=38964 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/audiophiles
